Epstein Secrets

f Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 199 7) 7 Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17

released, could interfere with post-trial criminal proceedings, such as an appeaL See, e.g.,Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17, 27-28 (D.D.C. 2007); Kansi v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 1998). 8 EFTA00071567 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 15 of 30 (

2, 2016) 22 SafeCard Sens., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 5 Shapiro v. U.S. Dept oflustice, 37 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2014) 9 Tigue v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 13 U.S. Dep 't of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) 17 United States ex r

f Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 199 7) 7 Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17

released, could interfere with post-trial criminal proceedings, such as an appeaL See, e.g.,Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17, 27-28 (D.D.C. 2007); Kansi v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 1998). 8 EFTA00075450 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 15 of 30 (

2, 2016) 22 SafeCard Sens., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 5 Shapiro v. U.S. Dept oflustice, 37 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2014) 9 Tigue v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 13 U.S. Dep 't of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) 17 United States ex r

f Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 199 7) 7 Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17

released, could interfere with post-trial criminal proceedings, such as an appeaL See, e.g.,Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17, 27-28 (D.D.C. 2007); Kansi v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 1998). 8 EFTA00088684 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 15 of 30 (

2, 2016) 22 SafeCard Sens., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 5 Shapiro v. U.S. Dept oflustice, 37 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2014) 9 Tigue v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 13 U.S. Dep 't of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) 17 United States ex r

eased, could interfere with post-trial criminal proceedings, such as an appeal. See, e.g., Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17, 27-28 (D. D.C. 2007); Kansi v. U.S Dep't ofJustice, II F. Supp. 2d 42, 44 (D. D.C. 1998). 8 EFTA00069319 As a threshold matter, all of the records withheld by FBI pursuant t

sion" made by the agency to establish the predecisional nature of a particular record. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck,421 U.S. 132, 151 n.18 (1975); accord Tigue v. U.S. Dep't ofJustice, 312 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 2002). Rather, so long as the document "was prepared to assist [agency] decisionmaking on a speci